The Jury found the original concept in Stage I very attractive. The design was a clear single statement of a predominantly architectural solution that provided an area of quiet repose in a huge serene outdoor room enclosed on three sides and covered by elegant umbrellas. The design gained and lost in the transitional period between Stages I and II. The changeover was so thorough that it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons. The Jury asked for a demonstration of the design's suitabil¬ity for exhibition purposes and more detailed development of the site and exterior treatment. Although technically functional and meeting all requirements with considerable skill the results in Stage Il were disappointing and the Jury was unanimous that the design lost most of those architectural qualities which made it attractive in Stage I.
The functional aspects of the design were improved, providing good circulation for exhibition areas and crowds, once on site, and adequate spaces for exhibition purposes. The suspended sculpture over the activity area seemed sinister and failed to enhance the design, though its effectiveness for the function intended was not disputed. The structural system was efficiently detailed, but the external expression dominated to the point where the Jury wondered whether it would be considered significant in 1970. The space frame construction of walls of exhibition areas seemed an elaborate way of achiev¬ing rather simple spaces - yet it is not fully exploited, being used rather decoratively with a somewhat fussy effect when seen with all the other forms and devices. Nor is the potential of the reflective roof surface fully realised. The flat plane of the upper roof seemed unsympathetic to the sloping plane forms of lower buildings, and the elegance of umbrellas in Stage I was entirely lost in Stage II.
Among other drawbacks of the design were the single entrance to the site, with no access from the sides at the two approaches; the confused circulation of performers and public on stage; the poor location of the Commissioner-General's suite, not taking advantage of the court; and the inadequate and badly placed (in circulation path) coffee shop and outdoor area with poor access to the performers' dressing rooms.
A careful explanatory report was of great help to the Jury. The drawings and description indicated that the design could provide a good exhibit vehicle and could be realised within the limitations of the budget.
(From competition documentation)
50 scanned / 20 viewable
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Section
- Section
- Section
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Plan
- Plan
- Plan
- Plan
- Section
- Section
- Elevation
- Elevation
